Kearifan Lokal Tradisi Kuru We Fohon Sebagai Warisan Budaya pada Suku Nonot Forenain di Desa Babulu Kecamatan Kobalima Kabupaten Malaka
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to describe the process of implementing the Kuru We Fohon Ceremony and to describe the deep meaning contained in the Ritual. The method in this study uses a qualitative method. This Qualitative Approach also aims to gain understanding and describe a complex reality. In qualitative, this research procedure produces descriptive data in the form of written or spoken words based on the behavior of the object being studied. The results of the study are in the form of the first planning stage: the tribal chief will gather all Lulik Atan to plan when the Kuru We Fohon Tradition (taking sacred water) will be carried out. While the implementation stage includes Halaku We Fohon (Renewal) by the tribal chief and other traditional leaders, Kuru We Fohon (Taking Sacred Water) by the tribal chief and brought by one of the traditional leaders into the traditional house, Hatama We Fohon (Giving Entering Sacred Water) the officer who brings the Sacred Water into the traditional house. in the final stage, sprinkling the traditional house using sacred water and distributing Betel Nut (mama rai) to all the Nonot Forenain tribal people. The Kuru We Fohon ritual is deeply sacred, encompassing respect for ancestors and seeking their blessings. This ritual serves not only as a means of strengthening the relationship between ancestors and humans, but also as a means of strengthening cultural values. It teaches the importance of mutual cooperation, courtesy, and morality in social life.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it